Was Hitler a Communist and later a Social Democrat? New
evidence has been discovered by German historian Thomas Weber that has been
published in several of his books. There is now a website with the new
information, which had been available on the “Bavarian Soviet Republic”
Wikipedia page until an editor censored the material despite its noteworthy
footnotes. Link below

Our annual Libertarian Party of Monterey County meeting will
be Thur., February 28, 2019 at Roundtable Pizza in Seaside (1717 Fremont
Blvd.,). At about 5:30 PM we will provide pizza and beverages. After eating and
socializing, there will be a short business meeting with elections and
discussion of our 2019 activities.

Be prepared to support the county party by renewing your
annual dues.

The 2019 LP of California Convention will be held April 5-7
at the Concord Crowne Plaza, 45 John Glenn Dr., Concord, CA 94520. We need to
assign delegates. Hope to see you there.

Thomas Lee wrote an insightful letter on guns, war, and PTSD
for the Monterey Herald. Tom has been an elected member to the Libertarian
Party of Monterey County executive committee in the past. Like myself, he is a
member of the Peace Coalition of Monterey County– Lawrence Samuels

Letter to the Monterey
Herald by Thomas Lee, 11-14-2018

The tragic outcome for some who fight our wars

Polls showed health care and immigration at the top of
Americans’ concern for the fall election. American wars and militarism were
hardly mentioned at all. It’s no wonder since the media ignores the on-going
scope and cost of American wars abroad. So it came as a shock that an ex-Marine
who saw horrendous action in Afghanistan killed 12 people in Thousand Oaks. One
theory is that he contracted PTSD.

But Thomas Burke, a chaplain embedded with the killer in the
same Marine Corps regiment (quoted by CNN), had a different take. “PTSD doesn’t
create homicidal ideation,” Burke said. “We train a generation to be as violent
as possible, then we expect them to come home and be OK. It’s not mental
illness. It’s that we’re doing something to a generation and we’re not
responding to the needs they have.”

Most Americans want to forget the endless wars fought on our
behalf. Perhaps we know they’re wrong, but feel powerless to act effectively.
But too many of the soldiers sent to fight these wars don’t forget, haunting us
for decades to come. The Peace Coalition of Monterey County says enough!

Published in the Carmel
Pine Cone as a 1/2 page advertisement, Oct. 12, 2018.

–Using the POWER of the STATE to Steal!–

Because, like thieves of the night, they believe that since
they breathe, everyone owes them stuff. If they cannot buy Cal Am by voluntary
means, they will simply use the power of the state to take it. And if there is
resistance, the thieves will simply pull out their state-issued guns and take
everything by physical force, reminiscent of the ugly ideologies that plagued
Europe in the 1930-1940s.

To invade and pillage others was the typical mindset of the
German National Socialists and Italian Fascists. They not only plundered other nations,
but many minorities as well, stealing everything they owned, their homes,
businesses, clothing, even gold fillings from their teeth. One German business
man wrote of this state thievery in Günter Reimann’s The Vampire Economy
(1939), asserting that “These Nazi radicals think of nothing except
‘distributing the wealth’” and are involved in the “confiscation of private
property.” (1)

Mussolini also favored abolishing private property, arguing
in a convoluted socialist way that “private property is theft” and then
suggesting that its abolishment would move Italy “through the phase of
collectivism forwards to the ultimate goal of communism.”(2)

Originally, eminent domain in America was solely employed to
get ownership of road easements in order for the public to maintain them. Now,
everyone’s homes, businesses and property are under an authoritarian chopping
block.

There is no moral principle which allows someone to steal
what they cannot get through voluntary exchange. It is simply a form of
“legalized theft” that has been used by every tinhorn dictator and ideological
extremist since the dawn of mankind.
Most parents tell their children: “Don’t hurt others and don’t take their
stuff.” You would think that stealing would be unacceptable by the 21st century!
But these anti-water activists simply harken back to the old brutal days when
“might made right.”

Stealing Is Still
Wrong!
Vote NO on Measure J

Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE),
Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association
(STA)

The United States and our Western Allies fought German
National Socialism and Italian Fascism during World War II to defend liberal
capitalism. That point was made crystal clear by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s
Propaganda Minister, who defined World War II in stark economic terms,
declaring that “England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist
people’s state.”(1)

To seize (steal) private property and companies was the
essence of Marxist-inspired Fascists and their efforts to plunder other
nations, races, private property, and private businesses. The National
Socialists were serial kleptomaniacs who believed they could take whatever they
wanted for what they deemed was the public good. Their motto, “the common good
before the individual good”, allowed the National Socialists to engage in what
Hitler called “social justice,”(2) social engineering, and nationalistic
policies. Under the yoke of authoritarian socialism, they established a
centralized welfare-warfare state determined to militarily conquer the world.
After all, the “origins of fascist ideology” was “Marxism.”(3)

The United States was able to stop Germany’s and Italy’s
socialization and fascistization of Europe. It is time to do the same here and
stop this social-fascistization of the economy from plaguing America.

Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE),
Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association
(STA). Material comes from the forthcoming book– Killing History: The False
Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the ‘Free Left’ and
‘Statist Left’ — by L.K. Samuels

[2] Adolf Hitler, “Why We Are Anti-Semites,” an August 15,
1920 speech in Munich, Hitler declared: “we do not believe that there could
ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal
social justice…”

This material was placed in an advertisement in the Carmel
Valley Pine Cone, Sept. 28, 2018.

A group of social activists are attempting to use eminent
domain tactics to engineer a government takeover of a privately-owned water
company. So what does that have to do with historical Fascism? Plenty! For
instance:

• The 13-point plank of the 1920 National Socialist Program
demanded the “nationalization of all trusts” (corporations).
• In 1934, Mussolini boasted that “Three-fourths of the Italian economy,
industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”(1) And in 1939
“This level of state intervention greatly surpassed that in Nazi Germany,
giving Italy a public sector second only to that of Stalin’s Russia.”(2)
• In 1937 Göring decided to nationalize private deposits of iron ore, “taking
control of all privately owned steelworks and setting up a new company, known
as the Hermann Göring Works.”(3)
• By 1943, state ownership in the Third Reich had expanded rapidly where “the
number of state-owned firms topped 500.” (4)
• In 1944, Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production,
worried about a complete government takeover of the private sector in Germany,
warning that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more
ground, furthered by many of the [Nazi] party functionaries.”(5)
• Albert Speer also mentioned that Hitler would go into tirades over companies
that were bringing in “high earnings without work.” Shouting to Speer, Hitler
declared: “One of these days I’ll sweep away this outrage and nationalize all
corporations.” (6)
• Fascism was a “very specific revision of Marxism.” (7)

Vote yes for freedom
by voting NO on Measure J
Paid for by the Committee Against Fascist Economics (CAFE), Libertarian Party
of Monterey County (LPMC) and Seaside Taxpayers Association (STA)
Footnotes available at:http://www.committeeagainstfascism.org/
Material comes from the forthcoming book– Killing History: The False
Left-Right Political Spectrum and the Battle Between the ‘Free Left’ and
‘Statist Left’ — by L.K. Samuels

It is now official. The state of New York and Governor
Andrew Cuomo have decided to embrace the ugly specter of fascist extremism. A
statist Leftist, Andrew Cuomo has spearheaded an anti-human rights and
anti-Founders campaign to extinguish an advocacy group through government
intimidation, regulations, and threats, a tactic often employed by the National
Socialists of Germany to affirm the supremacy of society over individual
rights.

Fortunately, the ACLU has found these government-funded
strong-arm tactics to be problematic and unconstitutional, declaring: “Although
public officials are free to express their opinions and may condemn viewpoints
or groups they view as inimical to public welfare, they cannot abuse their
regulatory authority to retaliate against disfavored advocacy organizations and
to impose burdens on those organizations’ ability to conduct lawful business.”

In this case, that advocacy group is the National Rifle
Association (NRA), but it could be any educational or advocacy group that
actively espouses change. In early August, Cuomo bragged about taking down the
NRA via government regulations on his Facebook post, declaring: “The
regulations NY put in place are working. We’re forcing the NRA into financial
jeopardy. We won’t stop until we shut them down.” This has a chilling effect on
free speech for every group and institution, left or right, since this
precedent will encourage all politicos to silence or abolish an opponent’s
ability to express their opinions.

This case is obviously beyond the pale. How can a government
agency compel banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies to dismiss
an advocacy group as a customer? This is a blatant violation of constitutional
laws and protections, especially the First Amendment. The state of New York is
using its vast legal and taxing power to punish political enemies. Only a
Fascist-Marxist ideologue would employ the power of the state to silence
private organizations they deem adversaries. They are simply outlawing their
political opponents without actually legislating laws that explicitly make them
illegal.

The New York State attack against free exchange went into
high gear when Maria Vullo, head of the state’s Department of Financial
Services, sent out threatening letters to businesses in New York. Vullo
demanded that companies sever connections with pro-Second Amendment groups. In
many cases the government threats worked to scare off business vendors. A
number of banks withdrew banking services while insurance companies decided not
to renew liability insurance.

Of course, two can play this anti-free speech game. Tit for
tat reprisals are notoriously ugly and damaging. Conservative governors and
agencies might unleash their enormous bureaucracies and attorneys to go after
the banks and insurance companies that associate with opposing advocacy groups.
If this were to happen, all hell would break loose across the political
spectrum as society grows more polarized, if that is even possible.

When it comes to keeping the political environment free of
censorship, the golden rule of ACLU’s legal director David Cole is indispensable:
“The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to
penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”

A slippery slope always arises when government decides to
weaponize its political arsenal to attack political enemies. And such a chain
of related events has the potential to destroy the core values of the First
Amendment that could lead to the fascistization of America. But then again,
like the censorship transgressions on college campuses, maybe the stifling of free
speech is precisely the purpose of Cuomo’s agenda.

One thing that all libertarians and classical liberals can
agree upon is that taxes must be lower, especially in a state that has some of
the highest taxes on the planet. Passed last year, the politico in Sacramento
made it a automatic tax. That is the tax will automatically go up every year without
a vote of taxpayers or the legislators in Sacramento. The tax will continue to
go up until the end of time, or unless we repeal it. Their is a Repeal the Gas
Tax Rally this Saturday, Aug. 25 in Seaside at the Embassy Suites– see data
below.

You are invited to attend an “organizing meeting” in your
area for the YES ON 6 – Gas Tax Repeal Campaign!
By attending this briefing, you will learn why we need to repeal the car and
gas tax hikes and how you can help spread the word to other voters so we can
win in November. We will discuss campaign strategy, plan upcoming events in
your area, identify local elected officials supportive of the YES ON 6 – Gas
Tax Repeal, and devise additional projects in your area to get our message out.
The YES ON 6 – Gas Tax Repeal Campaign needs your help, starting with attending
this informational and organizing meeting.
Register today at this link – and share with your friends so they register too!

We all want to see the killing of innocent people by gun
violence stopped. The fatal shooting of 17 high school students in Parkland,
Florida was a real tragedy. But although there are many possible solutions to
prevent such horrific acts, we must bear in mind the historical significance of
gun ownership in America. The reason for the Founders’ emphasis on the right of
citizens to possess guns heralds back to the battles at Lexington and Concord.
A large contingent of British troops marched into the Massachusetts countryside
to confiscate guns, ammunition and even some cannons from the people. The
colonists refused to back down, believing that the confiscation of their
weapons meant tyranny. This incident provoked the colonists to take up arms
against Britain, their own country of origin, motivating them to establish a
free nation.

Such liberal concepts are embedded into the American DNA.
Many American states still have long-standing laws calling for every
able-bodied man to own a gun to defend the country from domestic or foreign
threats. This attitude epitomized the view that the people are the army. This
anti-militarist concept was a popular American tradition, which prevented our
government from establishing a standing army during most of its history.
Americans vehemently opposed a standing army under the classical liberal
concept that a big state and military was anathema to liberty.

Our nation was conceived in liberty, but unfortunately only
20-30 percent of the world’s population are now considered free. Most nations
are plagued with dictators, kings, madmen or pseudo-democracies with rigged
elections. Freedom of choice has become a rare commodity under authoritarian
and abusive regimes that oppress and slay their own citizenry. Political
scientist Rudolph J. Rummel estimated that up to 272 million citizens were
killed by their own government (“democide”) during the twentieth century,
mostly through state-sponsored famines, genocides, concentration camps, gulags,
and extrajudicial executions.

There can be no excuse for killing innocent civilians, but
the really horrific numbers for such atrocities are found exclusively in
authoritarian nations that disallow people the democratic right to defend
themselves with weapons. One of the best examples occurred in Switzerland
during World War II.

In 1940 a large German army camped at Switzerland’s
doorstep, preparing to invade. The Swiss had no standing army, only a people’s
army of reservists. But under their “porcupine approach” to self-defense,
millions of citizens in reserve units stiffened to deter foreign invaders. When
the National Socialists realized that almost every man in Switzerland was armed
and a marksman, they backed off and invaded France, which had a much larger
army than the Third Reich. Switzerland is about the only nation in Europe which
allows their citizens the right of self-defense.

A determined and self-armed citizenry of 4 million halted
the invasion of a Nazi army of more than 4 million soldiers. This is why the
second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights. The right to self-defense,
even against your own government, should it become despotic, is why America
still retains much of her freedom and prosperity.

The Libertarian Party of Monterey County (LPMC) will hold
its annual meeting on Wed., Feb. 28 at Round Table Pizza conference room at
1717 Fremont, Seaside, starting at 5:30 PM. We will discuss current and future
projects, elect new officers, and choose delegates to attend the California
State LP convention in Long Beach (April 27-29) at the Long Beach Marriott
(info at: https://ca.lp.org/convention/
) Open to the public. The LPMC will provide the pizza and drinks at our annual
meeting in Seaside.

The Libertarian Party of California (LPC) has strongly
endorsed the various ballot measures to repeal Governor’s Brown higher gas
taxes and registration fees. It appears that much of the money will not be
spent on repairing roads, as advertised, but on the wildly expensive and
uneconomical Bullet Train boondoggle. After all, the Bullet Train is a
transportation project and government funding is fungible.

Dawn Jones is leading the charge in Monterey County to
repeal that Gas Tax. She and others are having an Anti-Gas Tax Rally this
Saturday, Feb. 3 at the Valero gas station in Prunedale at 2347 San Miguel
Canyon Road, off of Hwy 101 from 9 AM to 12 Noon. Mark Carbonaro has been
advertising this event all week on radio KION 1460-AM. Come and protest this
high gas tax and registration fee legislation from Sacramento. –Lawrence
Samuels Contact: Dawn Jones at djonesygirl222@gmail.com

NOTE: There will be a meeting to oppose this tax Saturday,
February 17th at the Pizza Factory (926 S. Main Street in Salinas) at 11:00 am.
This will be a planning meeting to fight this tax now and hopefully when it
gets on the ballot.

There is another event on Sunday, Feb. 11 from 1 PM to 3:00
PM at the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento. This is a “Take back
California Rally”. If enough folks are interested in going, local organizers
will charter a greyhound bus to take protesters from the Prunedale “Park n
Ride” right to the Capitol steps. No parking fee, no paying for gas, no
driving. Cost will be determined by how many folks are going. Bare minimum is
$52.00 but I’m sure that will go down as people sign up.

NOTE: In my letter to the editor I should also have pointed
out that since Democrats now oppose higher taxes for people with expensive real
estate, they are in essence opposing income equality. They have apparently
stopped their campaign to increase taxes on the rich. But I thought
progressives were all about taxing the wealthy until everyone reaches wealth
parity! So why aren’t they shouting from rooftops to make the “rich pay their
fair share?” Why are they opposing higher taxes on those who can afford it?
Hypocrisy? Maybe they only oppose higher taxes for the progressive rich; the
rest be dammed.

Letter to editor: published in the Monterey Herald, Jan. 10,
2018

The response to the GOP 2017 tax bill was bizarre. Nancy
Pelosi complained that under the tax bill, 80 percent of the public would have
higher tax bills. But for decades Democrats have championed higher taxes!

Democratic governors expressed anger over citizens’ paying
higher taxes on expensive properties if the deductions on property tax and
mortgage interest were abolished. But wait, shouldn’t they have cheered the
prospect of higher taxes? Doesn’t government need more revenues? What’s up?

One of the craziest statements made during the House floor
vote when Pelosi said that the supposedly higher taxation in the bill was
“brazen theft from the American middle class.” Was Pelosi suggesting that
“taxation is theft?” Maybe the Founders thought that, but a tax and spendaholic
from San Francisco?

As for the Republicans, they said they wanted tax cuts.
That’s fine, but to keep deficits down, one of their pet issues, they would
have to also cut spending. But they made no attempt to cut spending!

Ever since Trump’s election, the normal world of politics
has gone simply topsy-turvy. Lawrence Samuels

There have been calls in the Monterey Peninsula community
for a detailed financial study of the Cal Am public buyout. Such a study will
unequivocally prove that a forced buyout would be extremely expensive to
consumers. That is a given. It will take a billion or so to buy Cal Am and
maybe another 2 to 3 billion dollars to service the 30-year loan, culminating
in sky-high water rates and property taxes. But while such a study would be
fruitful, it should be a secondary concern to the public. The primary danger of
eminent domain is the bad consequences for a liberal society built on choice
and liberty.

The seizure of private property not only gives eminent
domain the illusion of being moral and legal, but that government takeovers can
be extended to any private asset for any reason. Such unfettered authority
conveys a carte blanche for potentially anything private; even to deny the
self-ownership of people as if we still lived under feudalism. The stealing of
property from an individual or group gives the impression that such criminal
activity is somehow constitutional. But historically, this was never the case.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provided a clause to
prohibit expropriating property without compensation. At the time, the “Public
Use” clause dealt only with roadways, since there were no government-owned and
operated schools, hospitals or other facilities in 1700s America. Most roadways
were private easements that allowed public travel, but were poorly maintained
and rarely upgraded. Most Americans willingly donated or sold road easements to
government agencies in order to have them assume financial responsibility for
maintaining and repairing thoroughfares. Nonetheless, eminent domain powers
were rarely carried out since the public considered such actions a violation of
property rights.

But then came the 20th century which ushered in a radical
change in attitudes towards the power of the state. The Founders’ anti-state
sentiment was replaced with the concept that any politician or government could
be trusted to do good works. Many Americans no longer saw government as an evil
force just waiting to pounce upon unsuspecting people with despotic ambitions.
No, it was now believed that the tyrannical traits of government could be
reformed and domesticated, even made benign. It became fashionable to believe
that the state could be easily defanged and neutralized by intellectual
persuasion. In this environment, the political elite would be trained not to
harm a fly. Of course, history proved them terribly wrong.

Europe was first to experience the fully protruding claw of
totalitarian regimes, exposing the folly of misjudging the true horrific nature
of political institutions. With the rise of ideological armies and
dictatorships during and after World War I, collectivism, socialism and
violence took classical liberal and monarchic governments by storm. Europeans
experienced firsthand the savage and genocidal temperament of unfettered
governments as they barreled over property rights, pillaged the public trust,
and confiscated assets from individuals and companies without any thought of
compensation. The greatest admirers of state-sanctioned kleptomania were
revolutionary socialists, fascist syndicalists and national socialists who
favored a hodgepodge of ideologies that espoused racism, nationalism, classism,
tribalism, anti-Semitism, and statism, all in opposition to the John Lockean
concept of individual rights.

These European collectivists were extremely hostile to
private property, liberal capitalism, and individualism, and wanted to
concentrate political power for social justice ends. Mussolini, a former
Marxist, declared that Fascist Italy would “impose social order” on society.
Not to be outdone, Hitler, in a speech to factory workers, promised to create a
“socially just state.” And to achieve their particular ideological determinism,
they were willing to confiscate the property of racial minorities, outcasts,
opponents, and almost anybody else, eager to redistribute the plundered spoils.
For instance, by 1943 the Third Reich had taken ownership of 500 companies in
key industries, along with more property seizures in conquered nations. These
ideologues were so determined to seize private companies and create new
government ones that Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War
Production, worried that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more
and more ground” in National Socialist Germany. In the case of Fascist Italy,
Mussolini he went hog-wild with nationalizing the greater part of his economy,
boasting in 1934 that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and
agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”

A number of German Industrialists were extorted, threatened
or imprisoned, such as Fritz Thyssen, who, after criticizing the invasion of
Poland in 1939, was stripped of his political privileges. His company, the
United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG) with over 200,000 employees, was
nationalized. He had to flee to France, but was captured by the Gestapo and
sent to Dachau Concentration Camp.

The Founders were wise to oppose government ownership,
wishing to avoid the type of harsh authority that monarchies mercilessly
wielded on their subjects. In England, for example, the King claimed ownership
of all land and people, far and wide, and if a starving peasant killed a deer
in the forest, he would be hung if caught. The Founders hated such practices so
much that they put into place policies to give Americans and immigrants free
land across the entire continent.

Eminent domain is a horrendous injustice. Dubbed “Negro
Removal” during 1950-60s by the black community, eminent domain seizures can
only lead to greater losses of liberty. Why not just let Cal Am decide if they
want to sell their water company? What’s wrong with choice? Why put a
threatening sword over a company’s head? Why expropriate private property like
the German National Socialists, Italian Fascists and Russian Soviets? Such
confiscatory policies are not American, but actually an authoritarian type of
“ism” that should be foreign to every American.

I sent the letter-to-the-editor below some time ago to
the local newspaper, but so far it has not been published.

I agree with the removal of Confederate statues that
Southern authorities have now regarded as offensive. However, we are missing a
vital part of this story. We are forgetting about the offensive extremists who
established the Confederacy, initiated a bloody war to preserve slavery, and
then erected monuments to commemorate their crime:—the Democratic Party.

The first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson and his vice
presidential sidekick John C. Calhoun, praised slavery as a “positive”
institution that had supposedly graced the halls of great civilizations,
instead of regarding slavery, like the Founders, as an “evil” that must one day
be abolished.

The Democratic Party was culpable in institutionalizing
slavery, racism, white supremacy, Ku Klux Klan, segregation and Jim Crow laws.
But this is not ancient history. In 2010, Hillary Clinton lavished praise on
her old comrade Senator Robert C. Byrd, a recruiter for the KKK who led a
filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She referred to Byrd as “my
friend and mentor.”

Isn’t it time to expose and take down the political party
responsible for establishing the Confederacy and its racist legacy, instead of
just a few bronze statues?

A report from the Food and
Water Watch has Cal Am water rates as the most expensive in the nation. Maybe.
But who is really responsible for the high rates?

The story began with a 1995
proposed dam in upper Carmel Valley. The dam would have been the lowest-cost
alternative since the fresh water is already free, naturally. Moreover, the dam
would let the river flow during the dry summer months to accommodate the
steelhead salmon, red-legged frog and other important species. Easy peezy. But
no, the radical environmentalists said that a desalt plant would be better,
although far more expensive. The dam was voted down. The cost of water seemed
to be unimportant.

When the dam was no longer
politically viable, the radical environmentalists changed their tune. No, the
desalt plant would not do. As for the temporary government agency—the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), explicitly organized to resolve our
water problems—they seemed impotent to do much of anything. After spending
around $100 to $150 million dollars to find a new water source, there was
little to show. In fact, the taxpayers’ money spent by MPWMD would have
provided the lion’s share of the funds to build a dam. Ironic.

Other alternatives to provide water
got the attention of Clint Eastwood, who offered to donate a large parcel of
land for a reservoir near Carmel River in early 1990, a project called the
Cañada Reservoir Project, which most people wholeheartedly supported. That is,
almost everyone except the MPWMD that had elected a number of radical
environmentalists who opposed the lower-costing water gift. The project died.
Apparently, cost was again no object.

It took the local city mayors’
Monterey Regional Water Authority to get a desalt plant off the ground after
almost 25 years of do-nothing. But here again, the radical environmentalists
sued, obstructed, and delayed in every possible way to stop the desalt plant.
This pattern only increased water rates. And even if Cal Am had been a public
entity, the water rates would be still be high, since the State’s court order
forced the water provider to get customers to use less water, thereby making
the production of water more expensive per gallon.

So, what is the game plan of the
radical environmentalists? We know they don’t like water because it might
inspire some growth, despite the harsh restrictions against building anything
in Monterey County. Maybe they simply want to show their political muscles by
actually stealing the water company before they eminent-domain whole
neighborhoods into wildlands, returning Monterey to its pre-Columbian days. But
that would bring up another problem; water would be fairly cheap then, and the
make-water-expensive crowd could never allow that.

Lawrence Samuels is author of
the 2013 book, “In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and
Human Action.” He lives in Carmel Valley.

In an effort to expand the government sector, Public Water
Now not only advocates a buyout of California American Water, but if the water
company refuses to sell, an expropriation of their business. This ideology of
stealing has an ugly history that few people today would publicly support.

The story begins with Willian Lloyd Garrison, leader of the
American Abolitionist movement that eventually led to the demise of slavery.
Garrison was famous for labeling slavery “manstealing,” a word that connected
enslaved labor with a type of stealing. At the time, most Americans saw
stealing as morally wrong, so Garrison’s association of slavery with stealing
was a powerful argument against the theft of a man’s time, life and assets. So,
in this sense, the ballot measure proposed by the pro-eminent domain ideologues
to forcibly seize Cal Am, is reminiscent of antebellum slavery.

Garrison was also a proponent of “self-ownership,” meaning
that people owned themselves and therefore cannot be stolen and enslaved. He
worried that if government itself attained the authority to legally steal, it
could take anything by force. Government law had already given private citizens
that power, but if government itself engaged in such authority, to legally
steal people and their belongings, another kind of enslavement would rise. John
Locke had earlier addressed this issue, warning that without private property
rights the individual had no rights whatsoever.

There were numerous ideologies in the 20th century that
opposed classical liberalism by promoting stealing in the name of community
good; plundering nations and minorities. In fact, these collectivists from the
1920s-1940s believed that the state could take anything from anybody, even
their labor. One such social justice militant in 1920 Germany demanded the
“nationalization of trusts” (corporations) and “the common good before the
individual good.”

Of course, the pro-stealing cohorts don’t like being victims
of stealing themselves. They would rather be the stealer, not the stealee. So,
to avert this dilemma, they seek political dominance with the muscle to impose
their brand of utopia upon society.

Nonetheless, one could argue that what’s good for the goose
is good for the gander? If stealing becomes acceptable, should we eminent
domain Public Water Now supporters, confiscate their homes and bank accounts
for the common good, bulldoze their buildings for public parks? Wouldn’t this
be the appropriate karma?

But alas, this scenario would lead to a kleptomaniac society
where nobody owned anything and the bigger the brute the greater his violent
plunder. Fortunately, America was founded on the idea of equal treatment for
everyone, which would include the owners of Cal Am. That should be the focus of
Public Water Now, not its political demand to steal from others.

Lawrence Samuels is author of the 2013 book, “In Defense
of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action.” He lives in
Carmel Valley.

The anti-freedom, pro-eminent domain (stealing) crowd is
trying to use the city of Missoula’s government takeover of their water system
in Montana as a shining example of success. But it turns out that this is not
the case. Letter below from the Herald exposes their fairy tale claim. –
Lawrence Samuels

Monterey Herald – June 8, 2017

Montana
not a good Example, public takeover a bad option

By Michael Deane, Executive Director, National Association
of Water Companies

This week, a group held a press
conference to talk about a government takeover of Monterey’s well-run,
sustainable regulated water utility. Numerous faulty claims were made despite
the many lessons learned from other communities where promises of an easy
condemnation takeover have resulted in a long, complicated, and expensive legal
process, and, unfortunately, higher costs for residents. Activists try to use
Missoula, Montana as a poster child for a government takeover, yet anyone who
looks at the facts from Missoula wouldn’t tout it as a success story. In
Missoula, take over proponents estimated that legal costs for the acquisition
would total just $400,000, yet the final legal bill has skyrocketed to more
than $6 million. The total cost of the acquisition to Missoula taxpayers will
exceed $100 million, more than twice the amount the city previously offered for
the water system. The Monterey community should look at the facts of what has
happened in Missoula and other communities and not be taken in by the fairy
tale version told by takeover proponents. California American Water has served
Monterey for more than 50 years and is committed to working with the community
to solve urgent water issues through innovation and investment.

Much of the material
below comes from my forthcoming book on the political spectrum. It was
published by the California Policy Center (CPC), which is a public policy think
tank located in California that is active in pension reform and education
reform efforts. Published on April 12, 2017.

By Lawrence Samuels

It might be surprising to some, but both Italian Fascism and
German National Socialism were closely related to and supportive of trade
unionism. Historically, both French and Italian fascism emerged out of a major
trade union movement known as “revolutionary syndicalism” (syndicat means trade
union in French), which first came into prominence in France in the early 20th
century. It was spearheaded by Georges Sorel, a French Marxist, who advocated
street violence and thuggery during general strikes to overthrow capitalism. In
his own words, Sorel wrote that violence is acceptable if “enlightened by the
idea of the general strike.”

But Sorel was no ordinary Marxist. As one of the
intellectual heavyweights behind revolutionary syndicalism, Sorel was an
inspiration to both Marxists and Fascist alike, including Benito Mussolini, who
referred to him as his mentor. Mussolini idolized Sorel, claiming: “What I am,
I owe to Sorel.” And Sorel returned the favor, calling Mussolini “a man no less
extraordinary than Lenin.”

Mussolini’s affinity with trade unionism is obvious; he was
not only a leader of the Italian Socialist Party, but according to historian
Denis Mack Smith, a hard-core Marxist, who “once belonged to the Bolshevik wing
of the Italian Socialist party.” Interestingly, Mussolini was for about six
years both a Marxist and a Fascist leader. He founded the Fascist Revolutionary
Party in 1915, supported Lenin’s October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and
called himself the “Lenin of Italy” in the 1919 election. In other words,
Mussolini was what I call a “Fascist-Marxist.” Not until around 1921 did he
begin to pull away from Marxism, mostly due to Lenin’s unpopularity over the
economic collapse of Soviet Russia’s economy that had caused massive
unemployment.

The revolutionary syndicalist movement was well steeped in
the ideology of Italian fascism. According to Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell,
a leading authority on Fascism, “most syndicalist leaders were among the
founders of the Fascist movement,” where “many even held key posts” in
Mussolini’s regime. In fact, Marxist-inspired “Italian revolutionary
syndicalism became the backbone of fascist ideology,” which means that a large
sector of the trade unionism birthed fascism—to be later known as Fascist
Syndicalism.

As a union organizer and agitator who instigated strikes and
violent riots against Italy’s invasion of Ottoman Libya in 1911–1912, Mussolini
sought an economic policy that was “productivist” instead of “distributionist”
to fulfill Karl Marx’s prophecy that a nation needed “full maturation of
capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization.” Marx argued that
only an advanced industrial system could provide the productive capacity for
the proletariat to bring about their historical worker-state destiny. In other
words, to progress to a fully socialized worker state, Italy required a high
level of industrialization, which, during Mussolini’s time, was stuck in a
mostly rural, poor and underdeveloped condition. To increase industrial
capacity, Mussolini permitted Edmondo Rossoni, a well-known revolutionary
syndicalist leader, to head Italy’s General Confederation of Fascist Syndical
Corporations in an effort to equalize worker and employer power under a
corporate syndicate structure. Rossoni and his Fascist syndicalists believe in
“fusing Nationalism with class struggle” and that workers should eventually
take control of all industrial factories, once they had “mastered the requisite
competence to take command.” Mussolini’s opinions towards fascist unionism had
a similar ring, saying: “I declare that henceforth capital and labor shall have
equal rights and duties as brothers in the fascist family.”

National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis)

What about the National Socialist movement in Germany? The
Nazis not only courted workers and unionism, but they even put “Workers” into
their official party name—National Socialist German Workers’ Party. They
appeared so pro-worker that the foreign press during the 1920s simply referred
to Hitler and his socialist party as the “National Socialist Labor Party.” The
National Socialists went out of their way to get workers support. In some
cases, the Nazis even allied with the Communist Party of Germany, demanding
better wages for workers. Hitler’s “brownshirts” and red-flagged Communists
marched side by side through the streets of Berlin in 1932, and violently
destroyed any busses whose drivers had failed in participate in the worker’s
strike. In fact, the biggest voter contingency for National Socialist
candidates came from German factory workers.

Soon after Hitler became chancellor he declared May Day of
1933 a paid national holiday and threw elaborate celebrations with songs,
speeches, marches and fireworks. The Nazi’s slogan for this people’s community
celebration was “Germany honors labor.” The prospect of national unity with the
Nationalism socialist seemed so high that even the German Free Trade Unions
encouraged their members to participate in the activities. After Hitler rose to
power, the National Socialists became the quintessential worker state, eager to
identify Germany as a “proletarian nation” that would struggle against
“plutocratic nations.” After all, Hitler repeatedly lauded the virtues of
labor, pronouncing in the Völkischer Beobachter that “I only acknowledge one
nobility—that of labour.”

Despite slews of pro-worker platitudes by the socialist
dictatorship, the reality was that the state was now calling all the shots. In
the case of trade unions, Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini did not just outlaw labor
unions under their regime; they nationalized them as would any good socialist.
Of course, such nationalization would be in accordance with orthodox Marxist
doctrine which demanded state ownership and control over all independent
organizations. But they were even more draconian. They made membership in the
union mandatory. As noted by Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini “In [Fascist]
Italy and [Nazi] Germany the official unions have been made compulsory by law,
while in the United States, the workers are not legally obligated to join the
company unions but may even, if they so wish, oppose them.”

Hitler and Mussolini were simply imitating Lenin, who had
earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and
worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced
workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor
unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian
worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot.
Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights
and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories.
Although Hitler and Mussolini followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, their
treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.

Of all the fascists, Hitler was vigilant in keeping many of
his promises to labor. Under the newly created German Labor Front (DAF), the
Nazis set high wages, overtime pay was generous, and dismissal of workers by
employers was difficult to execute, but inflation and stricter labor laws
eroded much of that advantage. Headed by Robert Ley, the German Labor Front
preferred nationalized enterprises over privately owned companies since it held
a bias against liberal capitalism. But its main mission was also to satisfy
workers enough to prevent rebellion against both industrialists and the
national socialist state.

In any event, following the Nazis’ “Socialism of Deed”
ideology, all sorts of revolutionary new social and entertainment programs were
provided to German workers via the “Strength through Joy” (Kraft durch Freude,
or KdF), considered the world’s biggest tour operators. The KdF program, which
was designed to provide affordable leisure activities, included such amenities
as subsidized domestic or foreign vacations, parks, ocean cruises, construction
of worker canteens that provided subsidized hot meals, factory libraries and
gardens, sport facilities and swimming pools, adult education courses, periodic
breaks, orchestras during lunch break, tickets to concerts and operas, no-cost
physical education, gymnastic and sports training. The DAF-subsidized holiday
vacations were so popular that by 1938 over 10.3 million Germans signed up.

But the debt was piling up. After years of Keynesian-style
deficit spending for expensive labor and welfare perks, along with military
spending, National Socialist Germany was at the brink of bankruptcy. Many
historians, such as Götz Aly, argue that as Germany’s economy faltered, Hitler
was forced to resort to military adventuring just to prop up his dying,
bankrupt economy. The failing economics of socialism and coercion resulted in a
horrific war that compelled the Nazis not only to plunder conquered nations,
but to rob and liquidate minorities in order to pay for Nazi Germany’s
exploding deficits.

Despite all of the special programs lavished on German
employees and citizens, the DAF was still considered the most corrupt of all
institutions under Hitler’s administration. Obviously, to mandate union
membership and compel workers to pay union dues without recourse is a recipe
for abuse and corruption. This is exactly what happened to the Nazis. Soon
after Robert Ley took command of the German Labor Front in 1933, he freely
embezzled union funds for personal use, despite an exorbitant salary. He lived
high on the hog with a luxurious estate, a handful of villas and a fleet of
cars. Ley was arrogant, often drunk, and prone to womanizing. He ran his
department like a personal fiefdom, ordering around his subordinates and
workers. He even secured bribes from party officials, politicians and
industrialists to meet his high standard of living. Sounds familiar?

Conclusion

Many American unions, especially those of government
employees, mirror the exact policies and tactics of Fascist syndicalism, giving
employees little representation, especially as to where and how their dues are
spent. Whether in Nazi Germany or America, when the state forces workers to pay
a union bribe just to work in an industry, tremendous power has been
transferred from the individual employee to a coercive collectivity—nothing
short of how the fascist-socialists emasculated their workers. And this is
where the distinctly American idea of freedom of choice has been abandoned to
the violent thuggery and corruption that has shadowed many labor movements.

Sadly, today’s unionism is actually no different from
yesterday’s Fascist syndicalism, where union bosses were officially granted a
monopoly of power sanctioned and backed by governmental laws. Someday the
American public will wake up and recognize these dreadful similarities, but
will it be too late?

L.K. Samuels is author of In Defense of Chaos: The
Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action, and a forthcoming book on the
political spectrum. Much of this matter comes from his new book, which has over
1,000 footnotes by many of the leading experts on fascism.

Below is my
letter-to-the-editor in the Monterey Herald (Feb. 22, 2017) going further into
the Trojan House scheme to nationalize an electric utility company.

By Lawrence Samuels

I have been attending City Council meetings concerning
Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and it is worse than I thought. If the city
or county joins this Joint Power Authority (JPA) agency, all clients of
PG&E will be automatically enrolled in the MBCP program. People will be
billed through PG&E, but the money will go directly to MBCP. If MBCP prices
become uncompetitive, and you want out, you will have to pay a likely monthly
opt-out fee. This is not a fair choice.

With PG&E hamstrung, the MBCP will become a government
monopoly operated by 11 politicians without any outside regulatory oversight.
Moreover, it will be virtually impossible for a city or county to back out.
This ploy is exactly the type of nationalization that Mussolini would have
imposed—no public election, no democracy, only deception.

Next comes the shocking kicker—prices will skyrocket because
the MBCP wants to use mostly alternative energy which costs more. Under the
guise of environmentalism, the MBCP will have nationalized electrical energy
without the public’s consent. You need to call your elected officials and
expose this scam, or this project will become an expensive Trojan Horse of
historical proportions.

There are political forces that are trying to nationalize
PG&E through the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) program. The Monterey
County Supervisors will meet this Tuesday FEB. 14 at 1:15 PM in Salinas
(168 West Alisal Street) to let people have their say. The other side has
already set up a phone bank to get their loonies to speak. We need people to
oppose this proposed state-owned monopoly. I will be there to speak and hand
out flyers. We need more speakers—each speaker gets 3 minutes. The MBCP program
is an opaque ploy to slowly emasculate a private sector power company, making
citizens beholden to bureaucrats, officialdom, politicization, and higher
prices without a vote from the public. In fact, all customers of PG&E will
be automatically handed over to MBCP lock, stock and barrel, without
authorization or client choice. Yes, you can eventually opt-out of MBCP, but it
will be difficult. The MBCP will eventually strangle PG&E through state
subsidizes and legislation, becoming a full-fledged government monopoly with no
outside oversight, no supervision by the California Public Utility Commission
(PUC). They can easily jack up rates. They will have to since they plan to use
only high-priced alternative energy. Plus, they will likely not allow new
competition. What a scam! Guess who have been some of the biggest proponents of
nationalization in the past? Benito Mussolini. His fascist government
nationalized three-fourths of Italy’s economy. And look what happened.
(“Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the
hands of the state.” – Mussolini boasted in a speech to the Chamber of Deputies
on May 26, 1934) There will also be a similar meeting in the city of Seaside on
Thursday, Feb. 16 at 7:00 PM at their City Hall (440 Harcourt Ave.) They
want all cities and the county to vote for energy nationalization.

Another scheme to destroy the working middle class. There is
an active plan through Monterey Bay Community Power to have the government take
control of the energy industry. The leaders of this scheme say it will cost
nothing to have a local government agency provide an “energy choice.” They say
there will be no taxes, no bonds, no cost to operate a costly system.

Oh?

Of course, we know there will be hidden taxes, no-voter-approved
bonds and funds generated by taxes levied through national, state and local
coffers, probably including Monterey County and the various cities. And what
will this tax money be used for? Most likely it will pay for extremely high
salaries, generous pensions and health care plans for the management and
workers.

Since much of the money will come from taxes and fees,
Monterey Bay Community Power can indeed claim lower electricity prices to
consumers. Anybody can reduce prices when costs are secretly being paid by
someone else: a slew of government agencies.

This is just another scheme to destroy the middle and
working class, and socialize America.

Since 2016 has been such a CRAZY election year, we’ve got to
have an Election Eve Party or go Berserk! Sponsored by those dudes at the local
Libertarian Party, Seaside Taxpayers Association and various workers on the No
on Measure E, X, and Y campaigns. It is near the mouth of Carmel Valley, starts
around 6 PM and Prof. David Henderson (NPGS) will provide lots of pizza. Others
will bring cases of beer and other munches. Let me know if you are interested.
Come and watch election results on a big TV screen while downing beer, wine and
pizza.